Logic of 9/11 - part one

19 "arabic" terrorists hijacked 4 planes, of which they slammed 2 in to the towers, 1 in to the Pentagon, and 1 crashed (pilots apparently crashed
the plane) in Shanksville.

Ok. So let's backtrack a bit and ask some questions...why 9/11 ? Why the towers ? why the Pentagon? What was the purpose of the event ?

THE TOWERS

Well obviously, the purpose of the attacks would have been symbolic. Even though the number of victims is high, which goes up to 3000, it is rather
obvious from the entire event that killing "as many as possible" wasn't the prime target for the terrorists.
It is highly likely that number of casualties wasn't part of the overall plan. The casualties were simply collateral damage from the main purpose of
the attacks...and that was to take down the towers and to attack the American military symbol...the Pentagon.
As for purpose of the fourth plane...let's not engage in speculation.

Now, since we established some parameters...let's get back to the hijackers/terrorists.

So...your plan is to take down the towers. We have to assume that it was the main plan of the entire event. It had to be. Think about it. What
if...the towers never came down?
What if the planes simply struck at given floors, caused mayor damage on those floors and a couple of floors above and below. Remember...the fires had
almost died out due to lack of oxygen...prior to collapse.
Let's even assume that some of the jet fuel really made it to the basement and caused some additional damage. But...with towers standing...how much
damage would there be ? Victims? A hundred per tower at best/worst ? And the news headlines would state "America still standing !!!!".

Would the hijackers have accomplished anything with towers standing ? Remember. Towers were a symbol of American economic power. It was for that
purpose they were taken down. To humiliate America. Not to kill as many Americans as possible.

Now, having the motive in mind, and the fact that no high rise building has ever collapsed due to fire or due to airplane crashing into it, at least
none of the records show it. Would the plot planners (whoever they are, let's say Bin Laden) calmly just planned the entire event without making sure
the towers would go down?

Remember...without towers crashing...they have nothing. No victory...only an attempted attack...which would make them look to be unable to seriously
hurt the US.

No. The towers had to go. It is the only logical conclusion. The only way they could possible claim any victory in this.

So is it logical, taking into account all this, to plan your attack simply with planes crashing into buildings ? Because years of planing could all be
for nothing if they don't take down the towers.
They had to be sure. And since crashing planes into them is not a sure thing to bring the towers down. They had to make sure manually. The only
logical explanation is that the buildings were mostly likely wired for demolition...and that is the only way to make sure you will bring them down for
certain.

Hitting them with planes, on different floors, different sides, at the top of the buildings...could not and will not ever guarantee a tower collapse.
Before the 9/11, there isn't a single building that collapsed due to fires or airplanes...I'm sure the planners knew this.
They could never count on this to be enough to bring them down. No models of data would favor them in such a way. The only way to make sure they fall,
is a control demolition. The only way it would work for sure.

You may not agree, because you think there is lack of evidence for the demolition, but I will not debate that. I'm simply saying...it is the only
logical explanation when taken into account the motive of the terrorists. Remember, they had to make sure...otherwise...you have another WTC '93.

My conclusion is that planes were simply a show for the TV cameras. If indeed some planes crashed at the towers, they did so simply for the benefit of
those watching.

It is now well established from many whitnesses that there were multiple explosions at the WTC area before any of the towers were hit. Planes were
simply a diversion of attention from the real attack.

The other possibility:

There is a possibility, that the hijackers never meant to take down the towers...only to hijack planes and crash into them. But than, the entire
aftermath of what happened is one huge unbelievable set of circumstances that hijackers never counted on, but which played right in to their
hands...or...someone in the know...decided to take advantage of the event to come and just used the hijacking...sort of a piggy back ride on the
original plan.

One must ask himself...was taking down the towers a part of the plan...or was it a lucky coincidence for the terrorists ?

If it was a part of plan...than they had to plan additionally...not just with planes...because it wouldn't guarantee a success.

If it wasn't...than it's either an unbelievable set of lucky lucky super lucky shots...or a 3rd party involvement...not known to the public.

A few years ago I asked the question of what would have happend had the planes missed or only partly struck the towers. I also asked what would have
happend if the towers had not completley collapased.

It would have meant that there would be large parts of a plane to forensicly examine. it would also mean there would have been at least, a part of a
tower to examine. Who knows what such an examination would have revealed.

Only a few days ago I watched a video of the bloke Mayor Julanani saying he had been told the tower was going to be comming down. This raises the
question, why then did he not order a complete evacuation of the entire WTC area. Particualy after the second plane hit.

This bloke allowed the firemen in the towers to go to their deaths when he could have prevented it. does'nt this make him guilty of something that
should have at least terminated his political career if not something worse?

there were many accountability cases in the aftermath...nobody dared to point any fingers...I guess the administration didn't want anybody from it's
own ranks held accountable. That would probably open a can of worms...

A few points:
1. You are making your own subjective assessments, assumptions and conclusions.....NOT facts.
2. Anyone willing to die for their cause is not exactly a free thinker so God knows why they would pick any particular target, method of destruction
etc etc It could be totally illogical and thus beyond our reasoning.
3. The main reason for terrorist attacks is to make the target fearful in the future and change their way of life (freedoms typically) out of
fear........it's working a treat in the US and to some extent in the UK (but not here in Scotland, the terrorists who attacked Glasgow airport got
their heads kicked in whilst on fire !!!!!)

A few points:
1. You are making your own subjective assessments, assumptions and conclusions.....NOT facts.
2. Anyone willing to die for their cause is not exactly a free thinker so God knows why they would pick any particular target, method of destruction
etc etc It could be totally illogical and thus beyond our reasoning.
3. The main reason for terrorist attacks is to make the target fearful in the future and change their way of life (freedoms typically) out of
fear........it's working a treat in the US and to some extent in the UK (but not here in Scotland, the terrorists who attacked Glasgow airport got
their heads kicked in whilst on fire !!!!!)

to address your points:

1. Excluding the line that starts with "my conclusion"...which bit do you feel is my subjective assessment ?

2. Agreed. But those that did the planning...surely weren't the ones doing the execution, dont you think? The official narative claims it was
OBL...he had extensive CIA training...so you feel they just decided to wing it as they go along ??? I doubt it. The event needed to be planned
carefully...unless...you cared not whether it succeeds.

3. So I can conclude that you feel that the terrorist did not plan the towers to collapse ? Can you confirm?

Anyone willing to die for their cause is not exactly a free thinker so God knows why they would pick any particular target, method of destruction etc
etc It could be totally illogical and thus beyond our reasoning.

You know...I'm having trouble reconciling these with the official narrative. So on one hand, they are crazy, illogical, unreasonable
men...terrorists...we can not penetrate their motives or modus operandi...yet on the other hand...when it suits the official story...they are highly
trained suicide pilots, agents even....that circumvented the standard military, airport, and border security. They pulled of a feat that many pilots
to this day claim is..."out of this world".

US soldiers that go out fighting in the middle east, aren't also "free thinkers" as you put it...the military can not afford free thinkers on front
lines...yet...they do their bit. Don't need to be a free thinker to deliver the fatal blow that somebody else planned. You just need your own reasons
for doing it...God is good enough reason.

Well, it's quite obvious you have never studied the 4 1/2 years of the plot from start to finish. You also have no idea whatsoever about the duty of
Jihad, the pledge of Bay'ah, the slavery of Palestine or the aims of global jihad. Without even a basic understanding of the motives of Al-Qaeda, the
purge of infidels or the holy shrine that is the Arabian peninsula it is impossible to explain the needs of the plot

As far as the attacks were concerned it was the ability of the operatives to invade America and cause havoc more than any symbolic nature of the
targets. The Sheik had only insisted on the surprise and the shock that such an infiltration would cause and crashing the planes anywhere would
suffice. To hit the targets-a decision left totally up to Atta-it would need an incredible amount of luck which seemed to follow the plot like the
devil and cover up numerous mistakes by the operators.

While it is easy for westerners to see the symbolism of economical indulgence in the towers and military might of the Pentagon, however it goes much,
much deeper than that.

It is simply impossible to explain the meaninglessness of this statement-'Would the hijackers have accomplished anything with towers standing' unless
you had an understanding of the FATWA and the pledges made to OBL.

I will add that the actual falling of the towers was significant in that it also meant the destruction of Alqueda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. The
sheer horror of the event, watched around the globe, set the world condemning the Sheik and his movement. In less that 9 months after the shocking
event they were in total disarray, which they have never completely recovered from. That is the symbolic nature of the towers falling.

They had no way of knowing the towers would be brought down.
That was not a prime goal.

Simply attacking symbols of capitolism was the goal.

One plane into one building was enough.
The others were redundancy. Some may have been stopped at the gates. Others may have failed to overpower the crew and passengers.

Plan the mission yourself.
Would you put all your eggs into one crew and one plane? No.
Would you plan 20 crews with 20 targets? No too complicated, too much risk of discovery.
Four crews is the sweet spot.
They did not realize how unprepared we would be so all succeeded.

As far as I remember...the president didn't make a twitch when informed the first plane hit the building. Almost all the players in the game sounded
alarm after the second plane hit. No...it was not redundancy...

Let me quote your dear president Bush...

"I remember thinking...oh my god...what a terrible pilot" - after the first hit. You see...if only one plane hit...it could have always have been
labeled as an accident. Only after the second plane hit...there was a clear indication of a plan. Up until that time...it could have been an
accident...and certainly...many at that moment thought that.

They did not realize how unprepared we would be so all succeeded.

So you're saying...they didn't inspect the US weaknesses...and they just went for it...blindly and hoping for the best ???

Sorry man...but that's just...childishly naive of you.

Known persons, and some on the terrorist watch list, tried to wing it to enter America ?
Pilots, that probably never flew a real passenger airplane in their lives, tried to wing it...all over America and tried to wing it when hitting the
towers at 500 miles per hour ?

They, the hijackers, tried to wing it with box cutters ?

The pilot of the plane that hit Pentagon, was just winging it...performing a brilliant never before seen stunt ?

They were winging it when they decided to pull off this plan right at the exact time multiple war games were running, and only 4 fighter jets were
available to intercept in the area ? I guess that was just lucky shot by the hijackers.

In conclusion...I guess God was on hijackers side...since he bestowed them with so much luck on that day...that defies belief.

They were winging it when they decided to pull off this plan right at the exact time multiple war games were running, and only 4 fighter jets were
available to intercept in the area ? I guess that was just lucky shot by the hijackers.

You are trying to connect two events that had nothing to do with each other.
I'm sure other cities had disaster drills planned for that day too. Why aren't you trying to connect those to 911?

Bernie Madoff was taking peoples money during the 2.3 trillion. Why don't you make a connection between those two?

It's been 12 years and all there's been is laymen speculation of many conspiracies around 911.

huh...just glanced over your links...and although it might seem you have proven your case...those links actually are more leaning towards the fact
that Bin Laden wasn't even aware of the attacks until he heard about it over dinner. Which is also what he claimed in this confirmed interview.

Bin Laden’s statements in this interview are markedly different from those made in the alleged Osama video tapes.

In this interview, Osama bin Laden exhibits an understanding of US foreign policy. He expresses his views regarding the loss of life on 9/11. He also
makes statements as to who, in his opinion, might be the likely perpetrator of the September 11 attacks.

This is an important text which has not been brought to the attention of Western public opinion.

From your link:

The CIA has detainees that are surprised at the towers collapse on 9/11.

Infact the world was surprised that the towers fell, not just Al Qaeda,

So the entire world was surprised, yet they fell anyway...

Doesn't that sort of raise some red flags ??

Since you are obviously on the side of the official story...yet you believe they did not plan for the towers to go down...but three fell non the
less...and the whole world was obviously surprised. Doesn't that kinda points to them most probably being demolished on purpose ? Or you believe that
despite all the experts, the hijackers, the CIA, the whole world...towers decided to fall anyway....to hell with physics.

If you read my opening post...you will notice that I covered such a possibility...that hijackers never meant to take down the towers...but you are
than openly admitting in fact...that somebody else obviously did...since nobody involved expected it. NIST even introduced a new category for this
event specifically. A cascading structural collapse induced by fires...(even though they admit something like this has never happened before).

the only speculation I made in my opening post is...is that the hijackers planned to take down the towers...the rest is the official narrative. I
don't mind if you label the official narrative as speculation...I do it all the time.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.